Acting

something that comes up a lot when debating films is 'acting'. Prime example is a debate on Serenity, wheremost of the fans who watch the series think the acting was great, where as personally i thought it was run of the mill standard.

What makes good acting, what makes wooden acting?

Personally I beleive its the ability to bring an emotional response out of the viewer, or make the viewer feel the emotions the actor is supposed to be feeling. This is why guys like Pacino are so good, because of the intensity they bring to each role they play. Also I think it comes down to the director and what he gets out of his actors....for example platoon - making the actors all go to a boot camp for two weeks.

Anyway, interested to hear different views!

pbsuxok1znja4r

I find that when most people come out with statements like "ooh, the acting was very wooden", they are usually talking utter BS.
The thing about "acting" is, the better it is, the less you notice it. That is why good acting never "stands out" as being really great. (Unless combined with a really great script, like you said; getting an emotional response from the viewer).
You only become consciously aware of how good or bad the acting is when the actor makes a mistake.
If you want to see some really terrible acting, there's no better example than Fair City.

Tusky

The thing about acting is....alot of people only say 'The acting was great' when the character are really over the top or the characters are really crazy. Rarely are the people playing very ordinary or sometimes boring characters seen as good actors even when they dserve it.

Running Bing

Orson Welles said acting is not about what you add to yourself but what you take away(and who am i to argue the guy made citizen kane ffs) I think great acting is simply when the actor totally becomes the character their portraying when the cameras are rolling. They are completely believable and its completely natural. everything from the slightest facial expression to body language is the characters not the actors. look at brando in on the waterfront or pacino in the godfather were not seeing pacino and brando acting were seeing terry molloy and michael corleone becuase they completely become the characters. now look at fair city and you immediately see an actor trying(very very poorly in most cases) to portay a character. Thats why its so much easier to spot bad acting than great acting because the great acting seems effortless to the viewer it doesnt even seem like acting. Its a tricky one to clearly define alright and maybe what i just wrote is complete bs but to me the above is what makes a great actor in my opinion.

missingtime

Sarah Michelle Gellar in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Never thought she was much of a great actor. For some reason she seemed to get worse as the series went on.

faithy

Sarah Michelle Gellar in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Never thought she was much of a great actor. For some reason she seemed to get worse as the series went on.

Are you serious? I thought she was really good in buffy. did you see her in cruel intentions, she was brill in that

Karl Hungus

faithy wrote:

Are you serious? I thought she was really good in buffy. did you see her in cruel intentions, she was brill in that

...what!? She's a dreadfull actress, outright painfull to watch!

Franky Boy

It's pretty difficult to get a good role these day and that's why acting seems so **** because of the films.

Pigman II

I must admit that I don't really 'get' acting either myself. I'm really more interested in the story and as long as the acting doesn't come off as pathetic (eg Sofia Copolla in GF3) then I can usually go with it.

Running Bing

Franky Boy wrote:

It's pretty difficult to get a good role these day and that's why acting seems so **** because of the films.

Are you serious? Some cracking films have been released recently. off the top of my head the machinist, sin city,Batman begins, friday night lights, mean creek,the assassination of richard Nixon and if your into comedy 40 yo virgin, wedding crashers. And thats only in recent months. I also disagree that acting seems **** these days full stop. Just because Pacino and Deniro are past their best doesnt mean theres no good actors. Johnny Depp, Christian Bale,Johnny Depp and Sean Penn to name a few are pure class imo.

The thing people forget is when you look back to films in the past you generally dont look at the crap films just the good ones. Like in thirty years time people arent gonna look back at the likes of deuce bigalow european gigalow to compare to films of their time.

"Are you serious? Some cracking films have been released recently. off the top of my head the machinist, sin city,Batman begins, friday night lights, mean creek,the assassination of richard Nixon and if your into comedy 40 yo virgin, wedding crashers. And thats only in recent months. I also disagree that acting seems **** these days full stop. Just because Pacino and Deniro are past their best doesnt mean theres no good actors. Johnny Depp, Christian Bale,Johnny Depp and Sean Penn to name a few are pure class imo. "


Well it depends on what you mean by cracking - the flicks you mention there are certainly the best flicks of the last year, Richard nixon aside i think. but i dont think they do have any where near the script and dialogue quality of say old pacino flicks, - and to say he is passed it is a wild statement- older stone flicks, coppolla etc. Anything made in hollywood these days is more revolving around entertainment, so they dont have a chance to to fullfill roles like michael corleone where the actors remarkably changes into a different person throughout the film.
Sean penn is a good actor but the guy plays a lot of very similar roles in the last few years, which gets a bit boring - he is more often then not depressed and hard up, or looking like he's gona be sick.
can you name some flicks where you have really felt the character that is being portrayed?...say like oldman in dracula, nicholsan in cuckoos nest, woods in salvador, and arnie in kindergarten cop? haha jokin on the last one.
But seriously while guys like depp and bale are the best younger guns in hollywood, is there a lot of depth in their roles?

BlitzKrieg

different spin on the topic.

Do you think the Star system has severly hampered the ability to judge good acting? How can we be sure we are not mixing good acting with how much of a star they are.

Seriously, it can be very difficult to know how good acting can be when you know who it is underneath. People judge (as someone mentioned above) how wild the character is compared to the actor him or herself. (Such as some of johnny depp's roles).

Some recent great acting i have seen would be Edward Nortan and Alexander Siddig in Kingdom of Heaven, while i was fully aware of jeremy irons and orlando bloom. It wasnt until i checked up on imdb after seeing the film that i copped on that these two were in it. You appreciate someones part, if you dont know who the star is.

it does, in a big way. but it comes down to your own knowledge and wisdom on film to see past that. not to go into a film with pre-requisites or seeing it through the paradigm of what the media has told you. Judge from knowledge and wisdom on the subject, and let it naturally happen. everyone will have an opinion, but it depends on where its derived from. consciously and subconsiously youve got wade through the crap to see the clarity!

Running Bing

Deleted User wrote:

Well it depends on what you mean by cracking - the flicks you mention there are certainly the best flicks of the last year, Richard nixon aside i think. but i dont think they do have any where near the script and dialogue quality of say old pacino flicks, - and to say he is passed it is a wild statement- older stone flicks, coppolla etc. Anything made in hollywood these days is more revolving around entertainment, so they dont have a chance to to fullfill roles like michael corleone where the actors remarkably changes into a different person throughout the film.
Sean penn is a good actor but the guy plays a lot of very similar roles in the last few years, which gets a bit boring - he is more often then not depressed and hard up, or looking like he's gona be sick.
can you name some flicks where you have really felt the character that is being portrayed?...say like oldman in dracula, nicholsan in cuckoos nest, woods in salvador, and arnie in kindergarten cop? haha jokin on the last one.
But seriously while guys like depp and bale are the best younger guns in hollywood, is there a lot of depth in their roles?

the point im trying to make is that film making in the 70's was at a level that was never seen before and hasnt been seen since and probably wont be seen again for a long time if ever. People like scorcesse,coppola,deniro and pacino all peaked at the same time. but if you compare todays films with films of the 40's,50's,60's, and 80's i.e. every other decade they compare quite well and I dont think the roles are any worse. The films I called cracking are good films plain and simple. Ok maybe I was a bit harsh saying deniro and pacino were past it but I was more referring to the sort of films their staring in these days. And I do think theres a lot of depth in Depps and Bales roles. You asked "can you name some flicks where you have really felt the character that is being portrayed?" try depp in Donnie brasco which imo is up there with the best performances and even his portrayal of george jung in blow and Christian Bale portrays bret easton elis' Patrick Bateman character perfectly in American psycho. Hes also exceelent in the machinist. I really felt the character being portrayed in all those films

Babybing

Babybing wrote:

the point im trying to make is that film making in the 70's was at a level that was never seen before and hasnt been seen since and probably wont be seen again for a long time if ever. People like scorcesse,coppola,deniro and pacino all peaked at the same time. but if you compare todays films with films of the 40's,50's,60's, and 80's i.e. every other decade they compare quite well and I dont think the roles are any worse. The films I called cracking are good films plain and simple. Ok maybe I was a bit harsh saying deniro and pacino were past it but I was more referring to the sort of films their staring in these days. And I do think theres a lot of depth in Depps and Bales roles. You asked "can you name some flicks where you have really felt the character that is being portrayed?" try depp in Donnie brasco which imo is up there with the best performances and even his portrayal of george jung in blow and Christian Bale portrays bret easton elis' Patrick Bateman character perfectly in American psycho. Hes also exceelent in the machinist. I really felt the character being portrayed in all those films

yeah i see what your saying - I think you can add the 80's to the 70s in terms of quality, and in some ways it surpasses the 70's - apocalypse now, salvador etc etc. Yeah Depp was great in Brasco, but the one thing on Depp is that a lot of the roles he takes seem a bit easier to play maybe thats because he such a good actor, but for some reason his performances dont really stand out as being historically good for some reason, maybe im wrong. i think Jung might have been a quite easy role to play??? I think his best role so far is platoon, even though its very small -you really see an intense jonny depp with all his emotions right there infront of you- i think stone brought out the very best in him as he did with all those guys.
thinkin about Bale in american pshycho, he filled the role perfectly, and he is probably the best young actor out their today, i just always compare actors to pacino, oldman and nicholsan which is a bit of a bad habit.
did you see pacino in that flick last year? merchant of venice? the performance was off the scale